SCIENTIFIC-PRACTICAL JOURNAL

| укр | рус |

 

 
Home Editorial ethics For authors Current issue Archive Contacts

No1(1) 2018

Back to the issue


DOI 10.37219/2528-8253-2018-1-04
Zabolotniy DI, Lutsenko VI, Bieliakova IA, Kholodenko TYu, Gradiuk NM
Efficiency of the cochlear implantation in children with severe sensorineural hearing loss and deafness according to the data of speech audiometry in the free sound field and in the noise background 
Zabolotny Dmitry I
State Institution “Institute of otolaryngology named after Prof. O.S. Kolomiychenko of the National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine”; Kyiv, Ukraine. Director
Doctor of Medical Sciences, Professor, Academician of the National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine
E-mail: amtc@kndio.kiev.ua

Lutsenko Viktor I.
State Institution “Institute of otolaryngology named after Prof. O.S. Kolomiychenko of the National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine”; Kyiv, Ukraine
Head of Laboratory of Clinical Audiology and Vestibulology
Doctor of Medical Sciences
E-mail: amtc@kndio.kiev.ua

Belyakova Irina A.
State Institution “Institute of otolaryngology named after Prof. O.S. Kolomiychenko of the National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine”; Kyiv, Ukraine
Laboratory of Clinical Audiology and Vestibulology
Leading researcher
PhD
E-mail: amtc@kndio.kiev.ua

Kholodenko Tetiana Yu.
State Institution “Institute of otolaryngology named after Prof. O.S. Kolomiychenko of the National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine”; Kyiv, Ukraine
Scientific Secretary
E-mail: amtc@kndio.kiev.ua
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6578-5799
Scopus Author ID: 6506250388

Abstract

Relevance: Any kind of the hearing loss, especially in the childhood, affects the mental and intellectual development negatively as well as behavior and social position of a deaf patient in the hearing world. Cochlear implantation is the most effective and reliable method of medical and educational auditory-speech rehabilitation for both adults and children with severe hearing loss and deafness. One of the key performance indicators of the cochlear implantation is a result of speech audiometry, especially on the noise background.
The aim is to study the state of auditory function according to the subjective audiometry in the noise background and the influence of various factors on the effectiveness of rehabilitation of the children after cochlear implantation.
Materials and methods: The study involved 150 children with severe sensorineural hearing loss and deafness after cochlear implantation. In age, they ranged from 3 to 18 years old. Evaluation of the efficiency of cochlear implantation was carried out in several stages. All studies were done in the free-field with the cochlear implant on. At first, we performed the pure tone audiometry. Then we defined the 50% intelligibility threshold of numeral test. After that, we defined a word recognition percentage. And finally we defined the impact of masker on speech intelligibility at SPL of useful signal 50, 60 and 80 dB.
Results: Based on the analysis of the received data, all children with severe sensorineural hearing loss and deafness after cochlear implantation were divided into 3 groups depending on the speech intelligibility. The first group (high efficiency of cochlear implantation) included 68 children (45,3%). This group was divided into two subgroups depending on the difference between the values of the speech intelligibility in the free sound field and in the noise background. The second group (average efficiency) consisted of 45 children (30%). The third group (low efficiency) were 37 children (24,7%). The influence of various factors on the efficiency of cochlear implantation was analyzed.
Conclusion: Speech intelligibility in the noise background must be examinated in all children after cochlear implantation. The main factors affecting the effectiveness of cochlear implantation according to test of speech intelligibility in the noise background are the ethiology of hearing loss and duration of post-operation period.
Results of speech intelligibility in the noise background test will help specialists who practice the rehabilitation of children after cochlear implantation (teachers for deaf, speech therapists) to pay attention to the decrease of speech intelligibility in children in the real conditions of communication and to focus their efforts on its improving with the appropriate methods.

Keywords

cochlear implantation; speech intelligibility in the noise background. 


Reference

  1. Al'tman IaA, Babiiakov NG, Vartanian IA, Dubrovskii NA, Ishchenko SM, Konstantinov AI, Makarov AI, Movchan EV, Radionova EA, Telepnev VN, Khachunts SA, Shmigidina GN, Shupliakov VS. The auditory system. Leningrad: Nauka.
    1990;620 p. [Article in Russian].
  2. Al'tman IaA, Tavartkiladze GA. Handbook on Audiology. Moskow: DMK Press. 2003; 359 p. [Article in Russian].
  3. Bahmut AY, Borysiuk IV, Pokydko OM. Ukrainian speech perception in noise interference. Kamianets-Podіlskyi: Kamianets-Podіlskyi derzhavnyi pedagogіchnyi unіversytet. 2000; 7-70. [Article in Ukrainian].
  4. Berdnikova IP, Mal'tseva NV. Speech intelligibility in noisy environments in normal and sensorineural hearing loss. Rosotorinolaringologiia. 2011;(3):20-3. [Article in Russian].
  5. Gel'fand S. Hearing: an introduction to the psychological and physiological acoustics. Moskow: Meditsina. 1984;340 p. [Article in Russian].
  6. Zaitsev AV, Berezniuk VV. Nine years' experience of cochlear implantation in Dnepropetrovsk. Proceedings of the XII Congress of otolaryngologists of Ukraine. Кyiv: Vistka. 2015; 206. [Article in Russian].
  7. Koroleva IV. Development of criteria and methods for evaluating the effectiveness of cochlear implantation in children. Rosotorinolaringologiia. 2013;(6):80-6. [Article in Russian].
  8. Koroleva IV. Scientific and methodological bases of rehabilitation early deafened children after cochlear implantation. Part 2. Macro and microstructural components of rehabilitation organization. Ros otorinolaringologiia. 2013;(4):45-9.
    [Article in Russian].
  9. Limar BIa, Bazarov VG, Tyshkevich ZS. The volume and methodology of hearing function examination in audiometric cabinets of polyclinics and hospitals. Guidelines. Кyiv: Otolaryngology Institute. 1977;35 p. [Article in Russian].
  10. Liatkovs'kii IaB. Handbook on Audiology and Hearing Aids. Moskow: МIА. 2009;18-21, 60-2, 151-8. [Article in Russian].
  11. Moroz BS, Ovsianik VP, Lutsko EV. Topical issues of cochlear hearing aids. Kyiv. 2005;47 p. [Article in Russian].
  12. Myshintseva TN. Noise Immunity of the auditory system. Miscellanea of scientific proceeding: The pathology of the inner ear. Kuibyshev: Kuibyshev medical institute. 1983;74-9. [Article in Russian].
  13. Pashkov AV, Kuznetsov AO, Naumova IV, Grigor'eva EA, Savel'eva EE, Khandazhapova IuA. Monitoring of auditory perception and speech reproduction in patients using a variety of cochlear implant systems in the first six to eight weeks after implantation. Ros otorinolaringologiia. 2011;(3):111-5. [Article in Russian].
  14. Bond M, Mealing S, Anderson R, Elston J, Weiner G, Taylor RS, Hoyle M, Liu Z, Price A, Stein K. The effectiveness and costeffectiveness of cochlear implants for severe to profound deafness in children and adults: a systematic review and economic model. Health Technol Assess. 2009 Sep;13(44):1-330. doi: 10.3310/hta13440.
  15. Bruijnzeel H, Ziylan F, Stegeman I, Topsakal V, Grolman W. A Systematic Review to Define the Speech and Language Benefit of Early (<12 Months) Pediatric Cochlear Implantation. Audiol Neurootol. 2016;21(2):113-26.
  16. Cejas I, Hoffman MF, Quittner AL. Outcomes and benefits of pediatric cochlear implantation in children with additional disabilities: a review and report of family influences on outcomes. Pediatric Health Med Ther. 2015 May 19;6:45-63.
  17. Cejas I, Mitchell CM, Hoffman M, Quittner AL. Comparisons of IQ in Children With and Without Cochlear Implants: Longitudinal Findings and Associations With Language. Ear Hear. 2018 Nov/Dec;39(6):1187-1198.
  18. Cord MT, Walden BE, Atack RM. SPeech Recog-
    nition In Noise Test (SPRINT) for H-3 profile [Internet]. Bethesda (MD): Walter Reed Army Medical Center; Military Audiology Association; 2009. [cited 2015 Aug 17]. Available from:
    http://militaryaudiology.org/site/wp-content/downloads/SPRINT/sprint_instructions_handout.doc.
  19.  Dunn CC, Noble W, Tyler RS, Kordus M, Gantz BJ, Ji H. Bilateral and unilateral cochlear implant users compared on speech perception in noise. Ear Hear. 2010;31(2):296-8.
  20. Eapen RJ, Buss E, Adunka MC, Pillsbury HC, Buchman CA. Hearing-in-noise benefits after bilateral simultaneous cochlear implantation continue to improve 4 years after implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2009;30(2):153-159.
  21. Entwisle LK, Warren SE, Messersmith JJ. Cochlear Implantation for Children and Adults with Severe-to-Profound Hearing Loss. Semin Hear. 2018 Nov;39(4):390-404.
  22. Fink NE, Wang NY, Visaya J, Niparko JK, Quittner A, Eisenberg LS, . Childhood Development after Cochlear Implantation (CDaCI) study: design and baseline characteristics. Cochlear Implants Int. 2007 Jun;8(2):92-116.
  23. Harris MS, Kronenberger WG, Gao S, Hoen HM, Miyamoto RT, Pisoni DB. Verbal short-term memory development and spoken language outcomes in deaf children with cochlear implants. Ear Hear. 2013 Mar-Apr;34(2):179-92.
  24. Hawthorne G, Hogan A, Giles E, et al. Evaluating the health-related quality of life effects of cochlear implants: a prospective study of an adult cochlear implant program. Int J Audiol. 2004;43(4):183–92.
  25. Krueger B, Joseph G, Rost U, Strauгя-Schier A, Lenarz T, Buechner A. Performance groups in adult cochlear implant users: Speech perception results from 1984 until today. Otology and Neurotology. 2008;29(4):509-12.
  26. Lazard DS, Bordure P, Lina-Granade G. Speech perception performance for 100 post-lingually deaf adults fitted with Neurelec cochlear implants: Comparison between Digisonic(R) Convex and Digisonic(R) SP devices after a 1-year folow-up.
    Acta Otolaryngol. 2010;130(11):1267-73.
  27. Leigh JR, Dettman SJ, Dowell RC. Evidencebased guidelines for recommending cochlear implantation for young children: Audiological criteria and optimizing age at implantation. Int J Audiol. 2016;55 Suppl 2:9-18.
  28. Martines F, Martines E, Ballacchino A, Salvago P. Speech perception outcomes after cochlear implantation in prelingually deaf infants: the Western Sicily experience. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2013 May;77(5):707-13.
  29. Martini A, Bovo R, Trevisi P, Forli F, Berrettini S. [Cochlear implant in children: rational, indications and cost/efficacy]. Minerva Pediatr. 2013 Jun; 65(3):325-39. [Article in Italian].
  30. Mosnier I, Sterkers O, Bebear JP, et al. Speech performance and sound localization in a complex noisy environment in bilaterally implanted adult patients. Audiol Neurootol. 2009;14(2):106-14.
  31. Nascimento LTd, Bevilacqua MC. Evaluation of speech perception in noise in cochlear implanted adults. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol (Engl Ed). 2005;71(4):432-8.
  32. Nilsson M, Soli SD, Sullivan JA. Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc. Am. 1994 Feb;95(2):1085–99.
  33. Niparko JK, Tobey EA, Thal DJ, Eisenberg LS, Wang NY, Quittner AL, et al. Spoken language development in children following cochlear implantation. JAMA. 2010 Apr 21;303(15):1498-506.
  34. Payton KL, Uchanski RM, Braida LD. Intelligibility of conversational and clear speech in noise and reverberation for listeners with normal and impaired hearing. J. Acoustic Soc. Am. March. 1994;3:1581-92.
  35. Pisoni DB, Kronenberger WG, Roman AS, Geers AE. Measures of digit span and verbal rehearsal speed in deaf children after more than 10 years of cochlear implantation. Ear Hear. 2011 Feb;32(1 Suppl):60-74.
  36. Sharma S, Bhatia K, Singh S, Lahiri AK, Aggarwal A. Impact of socioeconomic factors on paediatric cochlear implant outcomes. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2017 Nov;102:90-7.
  37. Vaez N., Desgualdo-Pereira L., Paglialonga A. Development of a test of suprathreshold acuity in noise in Brazilian Portuguese: a new method for hearing screening and surveillance. – Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:652838. doi:10.1155/2014/652838. Epub 2014 Aug 28.
  38. Vermiglio AJ, Soli SD, Freed DJ, Fisher LM. The relationship between high-frequency pure-tone hearing loss, hearing in noise test (HINT) thresholds, and the articulation index. J Am Acad Audiol. 2012 Nov;23(10):779-88.
  39. Vincenti V, Bacciu A, Guida M, Marra F, Bertoldi B, Bacciu S, et al. Pediatric cochlear implantation: an update. Ital J Pediatr. 2014 Sep 2;40:72.
  40. Warzybok A, Zokoll M, Wardenga N, Ozimek E, Wardenga N, Boboshko M, Kollmeier B. Development of the Russian Matrix Sentence Test. International journal of audiology. 2015;54(2).35-43.
  41. Wilson RH, McArdle RA, Smith SL. An Evaluation of the BKB-SIN, HINT, QuickSIN, and WIN Materials on Listeners With Normal Hearing and Listeners With Hearing Loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2007 Aug;50(4):844-856.
 

© 2019, Public Organization «Ukrainian Scientific Medical Society of Otorhinolaryngologists»